This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 160 | ← | Archive 162 | Archive 163 | Archive 164 | Archive 165 | Archive 166 | → | Archive 168 |
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"He was the first U.S. president with no prior military or government experience." Should be changed to first President with no government experience." Biden didn't serve in the military. Obama didn't serve in the military. John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Buren, Grover Cleveland, Taft, Wilson, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, FDR, and Clinton are more that never served in the military.
The people that served as president with no prior election process are:Taylor, Grant, Hoover, Eisenhower and Trump. You put this as 2 things combined. But I don't read on Obama or Biden's page that they're people elected president while serving in an election process but never serving in the military.
Your language makes these things false on this page. And then if you look at Hoover, he was never in government experience or military. What is your constitution on what you clarify as government experience? Is it a pointed position or an elected position? Does law enforcement count as a government experience? What constitutes government experience in your decisions? Southworthaj ( talk) 16:05, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
no prior military or government experience. – Muboshgu ( talk) 16:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Trump also became the only president who neither served in the military nor held any government office prior to becoming president.― Mandruss ☎ 15:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As president in foreign policy, he... - He renegotiated NAFTA into USMCA - He generally isolated allies and became friendlier with enemies (eg. Putin, Kim) - He ordered a strike on Qasim in Iran which caused a major diplomatic crisis and almost WW3
Also thoughts on changing his pfp to mugshot? Represents his current state with his legal troubles. 137.122.64.205 ( talk) 15:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
I second the legitimate questions from Slatersteven: "Could we not move much of the stuff about his presidency into his presidency article? Why do we need so much detail, when we have an article for it?"
Bingo! The Presidency section should be no longer than the lead at that article. In fact, our section should use that lead by transclusion. Doing it that way means that when the lead there is updated, the mention here will always be up-to-date. Can we just agree to do that and end more repetitions of this tiresome and usually fruitless discussion? People constantly commit a deadly sin by adding stuff to that section here that is not first added there. Using transclusion and a hidden note will end that practice. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 19:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Testing of transclusion of the lead showed a size reduction of −223,910 bytes. Look at the article in that diff to see what it looks like. (I have already reverted the test.) -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 01:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Each article on Wikipedia must be able to stand alone as a self-contained unit (exceptions noted herein). For example, every article must follow the verifiability policy, which requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation. This applies whether in a parent article or in a summary-style subarticle. See H:TRANSDRAWBACKS:
Transcluded text may have no sources for statements that should be sourced where they appear, contain no-text cite errors or have different established reference styles. It's a drawback that must a be overcome. It is overcome by adding the citations. If the citations can't be added, the drawback can not be overcome. Further, the idea to effectively cite a Wikipedia article in another Wikipedia article via such a note is prohibited under WP:UGC; Wikipedia is user-generated content and it would also be self referencing.— Alalch E. 02:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Use inline citations in the lead for the more contentious and controversial statements. Editors should further discuss which sentences would benefit from having inline citations.Cessaune [talk] 03:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Well, here we go again: tag added
here, reverted by me
here, readded
here with the editsum "if it's too long, it's too long". Now it's 45 bytes longer and saddled with a tag suggesting we consider splitting content into sub-articles, condensing it, or adding subheadings
. As if the contents of the article weren't already condensed to summary-level per consensus #37, and we didn't already have a hundred or more sub-articles and almost a hundred subheadings. (How would adding subheadings reduce the readable prose?)
This was the last lengthy discussion in August/September last year.
Space4Time3Continuum2x
🖖 13:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Could we not move much of the stuff about his presidency into his presidency article? Why do we need so much detail, when we have an article for it? Slatersteven ( talk) 13:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage.Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 13:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
impossible to read the thing from start to finish as it stands or even to distil out the most pertinent points— we have a table of contents and 89 subheadings so people don't have to. We can't help it if Trump's life reads like the Story of Grandfather's Old Ram. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 17:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Quoting from a long
discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Article size: The important criteria for articles is that they have clear scope, are clearly organized, stay on topic, have a moderately clear narrative flow (esp. within sections), put the most important information nearer the top, are well illustrated especially near the top, link obviously to relevant nearby/overlapping topics, etc. What byte/word count an article has is nowhere near as important, and does not in my opinion meaningfully help readers except insofar as it focuses attention on one of these more important primary goals. To the extent that bikeshedding about byte counts distracts from those criteria, it is actively harmful.
Space4Time3Continuum2x
🖖 12:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The evidence for this descriptor is overwhelming. Here is just a small selection of the sources: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/12/13/20992370/trump-republican-party-cult-steven-hassan https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Cult-of-Trump/Steven-Hassan/9781982127343 https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/04/16/history-shows-trump-personality-cult-end-00024941https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/04/16/history-shows-trump-personality-cult-end-00024941 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/01/12/media-trump-cult/ https://www.aaiusa.org/library/focus-on-the-trump-cult https://news.yahoo.com/maga-slammed-cult-poll-reveals-164714685.html https://www.newsweek.com/republican-party-replaced-cult-donald-trump-christine-todd-whitman-warns-1849063 https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4192325-the-cult-of-donald-trump/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2023/08/28/former-rep-joe-walsh-donald-trump-is-a-cult-leader-and-the-gop-is-a-cult/?sh=15f3063559e7 https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4192325-the-cult-of-donald-trump/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/08/trumpism-maga-cult-republican-voters-indoctrination/675173/
Please update the article forthwith with this information. 67.82.74.5 ( talk) 15:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
I noticed that this page is protected, due to vandalism being common. But I pledge to you, that I will not vandalize the page. SmashingThreePlates ( talk) 19:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Which will never change Anonymous8206 ( talk) 17:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It was brought up in the above discussion. If we were going to do such a thing, I would advocate for this or this, not this. § Cessaune [talk] 04:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
you might as well just wikilinkYeah, except for that pesky reader steering issue, which is why Cessaune brought this up in the first place. S/he was looking for a solution that most editors could accept, which is what editors are supposed to do.
for only one part of the article?I don't know what that means. We're talking about using this in place of most lead links (it won't work for president of the United States, for example).
It sounds too convoluted.Not so much. ― Mandruss ☎ 13:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The only person to have brought up in this discussion the alleged "issue" of reader steering is you.Space4T is free to correct me, but I think reader steering is part of what he was getting at with:
The lead is supposed to summarize the body: let's keep the links in the body.I'm just the guy who gave it a name for the sake of efficient communication. Anyway, both Cessaune and Space4T are at least tentatively on board with this per their comments here, and for Cessaune, per his/her initiative to start this here discussion. Why would they be tentatively on board if they don't sort of see my point about reader steering? The way I see it, you're currently the minority of 1 on this, not I.
I've never seen it done elsewhere. If I have, it might have been once or twice, if ever.It's never been done. I thought we had established that. With five months and 1,116 edits, I wouldn't expect you to have seen it if it had been done. Have you been editing for years as an IP? I kinda doubt it, since you didn't know what to call a wikilink when you arrived at this article. (If you're talking about years of experience as a reader, just disregard those last few sentences.)
It's basically a more-neutered wikilink.No idea what that means, either. Neutered?Tell ya what, I've been patient with you for days, trying to help you along. I did it because you had a decent attitude and seemed to be attempting to participate constructively (and in the Christmas spirit). Most editors wouldn't have made such an effort with you. But it's looking more and more like you need more editing experience before you can contribute usefully to discussions like this one. You still don't seem to get the reader steering concept, but you're capable of criticizing me for being the only editor to use those words. So I'm resigning from that effort, and your Oppose in this discussion is noted. ― Mandruss ☎ 15:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
the second paragraph in
Donald_Trump#Economy
|
---|
In December 2017, Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. The bill had been passed by both Republican-controlled chambers of Congress without any Democratic votes. It reduced tax rates for businesses and individuals, with business tax cuts to be permanent and individual tax cuts set to expire after 2025, and eliminated the penalty associated with Affordable Care Act's individual mandate. [1] [2] The Trump administration claimed that the act would either increase tax revenues or pay for itself by prompting economic growth. Instead, revenues in 2018 were 7.6 percent lower than projected. [3] References
|
Most readers will actually read the article, not just the lead—do you have a source for this? If not, do you at least have a rationale?
tremendous, how do you define that? Obama, Biden, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan—they all have more links per word. Cessaune [talk] 18:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
On most mobile (non-tablet) views, the reader only looks at the article's introduction without opening further sections.In 2011, only 21% of Wikipedia users had ever read Wikipedia on a mobile device, according to a Wikimedia rep. Now it's up to about two-thirds according to this. If this is true, then section links in the lead could cause mobile readers to read more of the article.
People would notice and say, "why is this article so different from the others?"Yes, they would. Excerpted from the previous discussion:
So, while you're entitled to favor consistency over evolution in this case, you need to acknowledge that the very same reasoning applies to all other "radical change" at Wikipedia. So you're effectively saying that Wikipedia "reader infrastructure" is good enough as it stands today, and will still be good enough when we're all decomposing. Many of us disagree, including all supporters of this proposal. We are prepared to pay the inconsistency price for improvement in this one isolated area, and we believe the impact on readers can be overblown. We fully understand the trade-off, but we believe that this change helps readers more than it harms them.But I think a lot of the pushback had to do with introducing something new and unfamiliar to readers, as if online users don't adapt to such changes all the time without skipping a beat. The human brain is designed to adapt to environmental change. [1] Presumably, this article would be different from most or all others on the site for some time, maybe forever. Prioritizing that before everything else is precisely what stifles evolutionary improvements, producing stagnation.
I just don't think it ought to be applied without a overwhelming support firstYou have already been advised multiple times that it's easily reverted. We don't need overwhelming support for something easily reverted. From a process standpoint, it's not a lot different from a WP:BOLD edit, which can be done by a single editor without prior consensus, provided it doesn't go against existing consensus. ― Mandruss ☎ 15:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
it's silly to compare a past-time like wikiediting to the real-world, why are you doing exactly that? ― Mandruss ☎ 18:56, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
In the U.S., for instance, any Constitutional amendment—radical change—requires support of Congress, the President and a large number of the States. That's a very high threshold. It's the same in any other country. This shouldn't be any different here.
...make it sound like you're the harbinger of radical change that will revolutionize history—wut? How did you get this from what was said? Cessaune [talk] 23:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
you need widespread support to enact your proposed changes. Otherwise, it'd get reverted.Please don't presume to tell editors who have vastly more experience what they need to enact proposed changes. It makes you look foolish. Apparently, you don't understand how the process works. An editor at your experience level wouldn't necessarily be expected to. But you posted this comment 11 hours after my comment below, which outlined the process that the rest of us are already aware of. Apparently, you didn't bother to read it, failed to understand it, or chose to ignore it because it doesn't fit your uninformed narrative.There are process and behavior rules, and violation of them can result in sanctions. AE does not care about the strength of a consensus, only that it's a documented consensus. I'm sure our consensus list includes consensuses at 55% Support, and they are just as inviolable as those at 80%. In my comment below, I suggested 60% for this one, raising the bar a little because this is a "radical change"; but that wouldn't be strictly necessary.I don't expect you'll hear this any more than anything else, so I don't know why I'm writing it, adding more clutter to yours. I guess hope dies hard. ― Mandruss ☎ 05:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
{{
Lead to body link}}
, with a redirect of, say, {{
lblink}}
. Editors would then code {{lblink|China|initiated a trade war with China}}
. The template would take care of the actual code. I don't think there would be any need to
'subst' the template, so editors would never even see the actual code. ―
Mandruss
☎ 12:49, 28 December 2023 (UTC){{User:Cessaune/Templates/Lead to body link|Talk:Donald Trump#Link China trade war in the lead|foobar}}
Fourth paragraph with section links
|
---|
As president, Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, diverted military funding toward building a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, and implemented a policy of family separations for migrants detained at the U.S. border. He weakened environmental protections, rolling back more than 100 environmental policies and regulations. He signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which cut taxes for individuals and businesses and rescinded the individual health insurance mandate penalty of the Affordable Care Act. He appointed Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court. He reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, used political pressure to interfere with testing efforts, and spread misinformation about unproven treatments. Trump initiated a trade war with China and withdrew the U.S. from the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the Iran nuclear deal. He met with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un three times but made no progress on denuclearization. |
Fourth paragraph with blue-and-black section links
|
---|
As president, Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, diverted military funding toward building a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, and implemented a policy of family separations for migrants detained at the U.S. border. He weakened environmental protections, rolling back more than 100 environmental policies and regulations. He signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which cut taxes for individuals and businesses and rescinded the individual health insurance mandate penalty of the Affordable Care Act. He appointed Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court. He reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, used political pressure to interfere with testing efforts, and spread misinformation about unproven treatments. Trump initiated a trade war with China and withdrew the U.S. from the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the Iran nuclear deal. He met with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un three times but made no progress on denuclearization. |
He signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which cut taxes for individuals and businesses and rescinded the individual health insurance mandate penalty of the Affordable Care Acthas three Wikilinks, but we would need only one section link to the Donald Trump#Economy section. On "He signed", since the section mentions both acts and the rescinding of the individual health insurance mandate? Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 15:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
that's a different topic, and I shouldn't have brought it up here. ― Mandruss ☎ 16:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Fourth paragraph with blue-and-black section links, 2px
|
---|
As president, Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, diverted military funding toward building a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, and implemented a policy of family separations for migrants detained at the U.S. border. He weakened environmental protections, rolling back more than 100 environmental policies and regulations. He signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which cut taxes for individuals and businesses and rescinded the individual health insurance mandate penalty of the Affordable Care Act. He appointed Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court. He reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, used political pressure to interfere with testing efforts, and spread misinformation about unproven treatments. Trump initiated a trade war with China and withdrew the U.S. from the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the Iran nuclear deal. He met with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un three times but made no progress on denuclearization. |
It doesn't really matter if a particular wikilink gets in or not.This discussion is not about that. That was the previous discussion. ― Mandruss ☎ 12:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
{{
section link}}
could be used in this scenario? We certainly don't want section names inline with lead content. No, workable means workable. ―
Mandruss
☎ 17:37, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Removed eye distractiong [section linking] symbols from the opening of this BLP. Eye of the beholder — I find the blue links more distracting
{{
section link}}
without expending the meager mental resources required to see that it couldn't possibly work for our purposes. Did he even really understand our purposes? Did his understanding begin and end at the heading of this thread? Then he moved on, but his opposition will presumably count in a consensus assessment. That's what kills bold but complicated proposals, and it's discouraging. Experience tells me we'll see a lot more of that before this is done. ―
Mandruss
☎ 07:01, 29 December 2023 (UTC)@ Space4Time3Continuum2x: is correct. We decided months ago, to not have in-article links. PS - Why do we seem to have two separate (but related) discussions going on? GoodDay ( talk) 22:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't mean for this to be a loaded question—what are the odds this will go through now when it didn't one year ago? TheCelebrinator ( talk) 19:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
You're making a habit of needing to be corrected, unfortunately, things will inevitably start going south.
So what's the latest? Am I understanding it correctly, that a 'new/never before seen' kinda of linkage is being proposed? GoodDay ( talk) 16:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
'new/never before seen', like iPhone in 2007. ― Mandruss ☎ 16:30, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
I just changed the template from this to this. Cessaune [talk] 17:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
{{lead to body link|Link China trade war in the lead|foobar}}
spits out
foobar. You can also use {{l2b}}
or {{lblink}}
.
Cessaune
[talk] 23:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)For proof-of-concept, see User:Mandruss/sandbox. Exact appearance of the lead-to-body links remains to be worked out.
I would much rather read the lead of a subarticleWith ten years and 43 Kedits, would you say you're a typical reader in that respect? If not, with due respect, what works for you isn't really relevant. ― Mandruss ☎ 20:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
what works for you isn't really relevant, sure but my viewpoint as a reader is the best I have. I'm not going to presumptuously assume what the "typical reader" would prefer without any evidence. Galobtter ( talk) 20:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
This proposal would go against that, requiring two clicks to get to a subarticle with the full information.In an online world built around clicks and scrolls, one additional click is hardly significant, even if the reader wants "the full information". One click for each successive level of detail; makes sense to me. This is a good example of the "amazingly lame reasons" I referred to earlier. ― Mandruss ☎ 21:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I plan on reinstating archives to the references in the article since they do not do any harm and protect against future linkrot. Customary note to the talk page per the editnotice. Cheers.-- N Ø 16:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
By legal definition Trump is considered a rapist due to the ruling of the first Carroll trial, yet it's nowhere to be found within the article. A former U.S president legally defined as a rapist seems noteworthy. Chavando ( talk) 01:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
This wiki page states that the president was found in collusion with the Russians but this has be debunked and found false. 72.28.207.138 ( talk) 02:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
"numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign"– Muboshgu ( talk) 17:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Hillary Clinton had fabricated out of desperation when she couldn't find any real dirt on Trump to smear him with.This is a violation of WP:BLP, and also utter nonsense. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 17:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under Trump’s Post Presidency->Civil Lawsuits->E. Jean Carroll section, at the end add that Trump lost the defamation case and was ordered to pay Carroll 83.3 million. 108.65.196.114 ( talk) 05:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In May 2023, a New York jury in a federal lawsuit brought by journalist E. Jean Carroll found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation and ordered him to pay her $5 million.[723] Trump asked the district court for a new trial or a reduction of the damage award, arguing that the jury had not found him liable for rape, and also, in a separate lawsuit, countersued Carroll for defamation. The judge for the two lawsuits ruled against Trump in July and August.[724][725] Trump appealed both decisions to an appeals court.[724][726] The trial in the defamation case began on January 15, 2024.[705] Jan 27th Trump was found guilty of raping E. Jean Carroll who was awarded $83.3 million in rebuke to ex-President Trump for social media attacks amid her sexual assault claims.
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi, I noticed a few grammatical errors in the article. Can I change them please? SilkDirksoak2ek3 03:14, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 160 | ← | Archive 162 | Archive 163 | Archive 164 | Archive 165 | Archive 166 | → | Archive 168 |
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"He was the first U.S. president with no prior military or government experience." Should be changed to first President with no government experience." Biden didn't serve in the military. Obama didn't serve in the military. John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Buren, Grover Cleveland, Taft, Wilson, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, FDR, and Clinton are more that never served in the military.
The people that served as president with no prior election process are:Taylor, Grant, Hoover, Eisenhower and Trump. You put this as 2 things combined. But I don't read on Obama or Biden's page that they're people elected president while serving in an election process but never serving in the military.
Your language makes these things false on this page. And then if you look at Hoover, he was never in government experience or military. What is your constitution on what you clarify as government experience? Is it a pointed position or an elected position? Does law enforcement count as a government experience? What constitutes government experience in your decisions? Southworthaj ( talk) 16:05, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
no prior military or government experience. – Muboshgu ( talk) 16:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Trump also became the only president who neither served in the military nor held any government office prior to becoming president.― Mandruss ☎ 15:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As president in foreign policy, he... - He renegotiated NAFTA into USMCA - He generally isolated allies and became friendlier with enemies (eg. Putin, Kim) - He ordered a strike on Qasim in Iran which caused a major diplomatic crisis and almost WW3
Also thoughts on changing his pfp to mugshot? Represents his current state with his legal troubles. 137.122.64.205 ( talk) 15:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
I second the legitimate questions from Slatersteven: "Could we not move much of the stuff about his presidency into his presidency article? Why do we need so much detail, when we have an article for it?"
Bingo! The Presidency section should be no longer than the lead at that article. In fact, our section should use that lead by transclusion. Doing it that way means that when the lead there is updated, the mention here will always be up-to-date. Can we just agree to do that and end more repetitions of this tiresome and usually fruitless discussion? People constantly commit a deadly sin by adding stuff to that section here that is not first added there. Using transclusion and a hidden note will end that practice. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 19:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Testing of transclusion of the lead showed a size reduction of −223,910 bytes. Look at the article in that diff to see what it looks like. (I have already reverted the test.) -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 01:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Each article on Wikipedia must be able to stand alone as a self-contained unit (exceptions noted herein). For example, every article must follow the verifiability policy, which requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation. This applies whether in a parent article or in a summary-style subarticle. See H:TRANSDRAWBACKS:
Transcluded text may have no sources for statements that should be sourced where they appear, contain no-text cite errors or have different established reference styles. It's a drawback that must a be overcome. It is overcome by adding the citations. If the citations can't be added, the drawback can not be overcome. Further, the idea to effectively cite a Wikipedia article in another Wikipedia article via such a note is prohibited under WP:UGC; Wikipedia is user-generated content and it would also be self referencing.— Alalch E. 02:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Use inline citations in the lead for the more contentious and controversial statements. Editors should further discuss which sentences would benefit from having inline citations.Cessaune [talk] 03:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Well, here we go again: tag added
here, reverted by me
here, readded
here with the editsum "if it's too long, it's too long". Now it's 45 bytes longer and saddled with a tag suggesting we consider splitting content into sub-articles, condensing it, or adding subheadings
. As if the contents of the article weren't already condensed to summary-level per consensus #37, and we didn't already have a hundred or more sub-articles and almost a hundred subheadings. (How would adding subheadings reduce the readable prose?)
This was the last lengthy discussion in August/September last year.
Space4Time3Continuum2x
🖖 13:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Could we not move much of the stuff about his presidency into his presidency article? Why do we need so much detail, when we have an article for it? Slatersteven ( talk) 13:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage.Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 13:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
impossible to read the thing from start to finish as it stands or even to distil out the most pertinent points— we have a table of contents and 89 subheadings so people don't have to. We can't help it if Trump's life reads like the Story of Grandfather's Old Ram. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 17:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Quoting from a long
discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Article size: The important criteria for articles is that they have clear scope, are clearly organized, stay on topic, have a moderately clear narrative flow (esp. within sections), put the most important information nearer the top, are well illustrated especially near the top, link obviously to relevant nearby/overlapping topics, etc. What byte/word count an article has is nowhere near as important, and does not in my opinion meaningfully help readers except insofar as it focuses attention on one of these more important primary goals. To the extent that bikeshedding about byte counts distracts from those criteria, it is actively harmful.
Space4Time3Continuum2x
🖖 12:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The evidence for this descriptor is overwhelming. Here is just a small selection of the sources: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/12/13/20992370/trump-republican-party-cult-steven-hassan https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Cult-of-Trump/Steven-Hassan/9781982127343 https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/04/16/history-shows-trump-personality-cult-end-00024941https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/04/16/history-shows-trump-personality-cult-end-00024941 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/01/12/media-trump-cult/ https://www.aaiusa.org/library/focus-on-the-trump-cult https://news.yahoo.com/maga-slammed-cult-poll-reveals-164714685.html https://www.newsweek.com/republican-party-replaced-cult-donald-trump-christine-todd-whitman-warns-1849063 https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4192325-the-cult-of-donald-trump/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2023/08/28/former-rep-joe-walsh-donald-trump-is-a-cult-leader-and-the-gop-is-a-cult/?sh=15f3063559e7 https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4192325-the-cult-of-donald-trump/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/08/trumpism-maga-cult-republican-voters-indoctrination/675173/
Please update the article forthwith with this information. 67.82.74.5 ( talk) 15:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
I noticed that this page is protected, due to vandalism being common. But I pledge to you, that I will not vandalize the page. SmashingThreePlates ( talk) 19:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Which will never change Anonymous8206 ( talk) 17:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It was brought up in the above discussion. If we were going to do such a thing, I would advocate for this or this, not this. § Cessaune [talk] 04:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
you might as well just wikilinkYeah, except for that pesky reader steering issue, which is why Cessaune brought this up in the first place. S/he was looking for a solution that most editors could accept, which is what editors are supposed to do.
for only one part of the article?I don't know what that means. We're talking about using this in place of most lead links (it won't work for president of the United States, for example).
It sounds too convoluted.Not so much. ― Mandruss ☎ 13:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The only person to have brought up in this discussion the alleged "issue" of reader steering is you.Space4T is free to correct me, but I think reader steering is part of what he was getting at with:
The lead is supposed to summarize the body: let's keep the links in the body.I'm just the guy who gave it a name for the sake of efficient communication. Anyway, both Cessaune and Space4T are at least tentatively on board with this per their comments here, and for Cessaune, per his/her initiative to start this here discussion. Why would they be tentatively on board if they don't sort of see my point about reader steering? The way I see it, you're currently the minority of 1 on this, not I.
I've never seen it done elsewhere. If I have, it might have been once or twice, if ever.It's never been done. I thought we had established that. With five months and 1,116 edits, I wouldn't expect you to have seen it if it had been done. Have you been editing for years as an IP? I kinda doubt it, since you didn't know what to call a wikilink when you arrived at this article. (If you're talking about years of experience as a reader, just disregard those last few sentences.)
It's basically a more-neutered wikilink.No idea what that means, either. Neutered?Tell ya what, I've been patient with you for days, trying to help you along. I did it because you had a decent attitude and seemed to be attempting to participate constructively (and in the Christmas spirit). Most editors wouldn't have made such an effort with you. But it's looking more and more like you need more editing experience before you can contribute usefully to discussions like this one. You still don't seem to get the reader steering concept, but you're capable of criticizing me for being the only editor to use those words. So I'm resigning from that effort, and your Oppose in this discussion is noted. ― Mandruss ☎ 15:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
the second paragraph in
Donald_Trump#Economy
|
---|
In December 2017, Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. The bill had been passed by both Republican-controlled chambers of Congress without any Democratic votes. It reduced tax rates for businesses and individuals, with business tax cuts to be permanent and individual tax cuts set to expire after 2025, and eliminated the penalty associated with Affordable Care Act's individual mandate. [1] [2] The Trump administration claimed that the act would either increase tax revenues or pay for itself by prompting economic growth. Instead, revenues in 2018 were 7.6 percent lower than projected. [3] References
|
Most readers will actually read the article, not just the lead—do you have a source for this? If not, do you at least have a rationale?
tremendous, how do you define that? Obama, Biden, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan—they all have more links per word. Cessaune [talk] 18:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
On most mobile (non-tablet) views, the reader only looks at the article's introduction without opening further sections.In 2011, only 21% of Wikipedia users had ever read Wikipedia on a mobile device, according to a Wikimedia rep. Now it's up to about two-thirds according to this. If this is true, then section links in the lead could cause mobile readers to read more of the article.
People would notice and say, "why is this article so different from the others?"Yes, they would. Excerpted from the previous discussion:
So, while you're entitled to favor consistency over evolution in this case, you need to acknowledge that the very same reasoning applies to all other "radical change" at Wikipedia. So you're effectively saying that Wikipedia "reader infrastructure" is good enough as it stands today, and will still be good enough when we're all decomposing. Many of us disagree, including all supporters of this proposal. We are prepared to pay the inconsistency price for improvement in this one isolated area, and we believe the impact on readers can be overblown. We fully understand the trade-off, but we believe that this change helps readers more than it harms them.But I think a lot of the pushback had to do with introducing something new and unfamiliar to readers, as if online users don't adapt to such changes all the time without skipping a beat. The human brain is designed to adapt to environmental change. [1] Presumably, this article would be different from most or all others on the site for some time, maybe forever. Prioritizing that before everything else is precisely what stifles evolutionary improvements, producing stagnation.
I just don't think it ought to be applied without a overwhelming support firstYou have already been advised multiple times that it's easily reverted. We don't need overwhelming support for something easily reverted. From a process standpoint, it's not a lot different from a WP:BOLD edit, which can be done by a single editor without prior consensus, provided it doesn't go against existing consensus. ― Mandruss ☎ 15:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
it's silly to compare a past-time like wikiediting to the real-world, why are you doing exactly that? ― Mandruss ☎ 18:56, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
In the U.S., for instance, any Constitutional amendment—radical change—requires support of Congress, the President and a large number of the States. That's a very high threshold. It's the same in any other country. This shouldn't be any different here.
...make it sound like you're the harbinger of radical change that will revolutionize history—wut? How did you get this from what was said? Cessaune [talk] 23:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
you need widespread support to enact your proposed changes. Otherwise, it'd get reverted.Please don't presume to tell editors who have vastly more experience what they need to enact proposed changes. It makes you look foolish. Apparently, you don't understand how the process works. An editor at your experience level wouldn't necessarily be expected to. But you posted this comment 11 hours after my comment below, which outlined the process that the rest of us are already aware of. Apparently, you didn't bother to read it, failed to understand it, or chose to ignore it because it doesn't fit your uninformed narrative.There are process and behavior rules, and violation of them can result in sanctions. AE does not care about the strength of a consensus, only that it's a documented consensus. I'm sure our consensus list includes consensuses at 55% Support, and they are just as inviolable as those at 80%. In my comment below, I suggested 60% for this one, raising the bar a little because this is a "radical change"; but that wouldn't be strictly necessary.I don't expect you'll hear this any more than anything else, so I don't know why I'm writing it, adding more clutter to yours. I guess hope dies hard. ― Mandruss ☎ 05:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
{{
Lead to body link}}
, with a redirect of, say, {{
lblink}}
. Editors would then code {{lblink|China|initiated a trade war with China}}
. The template would take care of the actual code. I don't think there would be any need to
'subst' the template, so editors would never even see the actual code. ―
Mandruss
☎ 12:49, 28 December 2023 (UTC){{User:Cessaune/Templates/Lead to body link|Talk:Donald Trump#Link China trade war in the lead|foobar}}
Fourth paragraph with section links
|
---|
As president, Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, diverted military funding toward building a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, and implemented a policy of family separations for migrants detained at the U.S. border. He weakened environmental protections, rolling back more than 100 environmental policies and regulations. He signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which cut taxes for individuals and businesses and rescinded the individual health insurance mandate penalty of the Affordable Care Act. He appointed Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court. He reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, used political pressure to interfere with testing efforts, and spread misinformation about unproven treatments. Trump initiated a trade war with China and withdrew the U.S. from the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the Iran nuclear deal. He met with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un three times but made no progress on denuclearization. |
Fourth paragraph with blue-and-black section links
|
---|
As president, Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, diverted military funding toward building a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, and implemented a policy of family separations for migrants detained at the U.S. border. He weakened environmental protections, rolling back more than 100 environmental policies and regulations. He signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which cut taxes for individuals and businesses and rescinded the individual health insurance mandate penalty of the Affordable Care Act. He appointed Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court. He reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, used political pressure to interfere with testing efforts, and spread misinformation about unproven treatments. Trump initiated a trade war with China and withdrew the U.S. from the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the Iran nuclear deal. He met with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un three times but made no progress on denuclearization. |
He signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which cut taxes for individuals and businesses and rescinded the individual health insurance mandate penalty of the Affordable Care Acthas three Wikilinks, but we would need only one section link to the Donald Trump#Economy section. On "He signed", since the section mentions both acts and the rescinding of the individual health insurance mandate? Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 15:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
that's a different topic, and I shouldn't have brought it up here. ― Mandruss ☎ 16:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Fourth paragraph with blue-and-black section links, 2px
|
---|
As president, Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, diverted military funding toward building a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, and implemented a policy of family separations for migrants detained at the U.S. border. He weakened environmental protections, rolling back more than 100 environmental policies and regulations. He signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which cut taxes for individuals and businesses and rescinded the individual health insurance mandate penalty of the Affordable Care Act. He appointed Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court. He reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, used political pressure to interfere with testing efforts, and spread misinformation about unproven treatments. Trump initiated a trade war with China and withdrew the U.S. from the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the Iran nuclear deal. He met with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un three times but made no progress on denuclearization. |
It doesn't really matter if a particular wikilink gets in or not.This discussion is not about that. That was the previous discussion. ― Mandruss ☎ 12:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
{{
section link}}
could be used in this scenario? We certainly don't want section names inline with lead content. No, workable means workable. ―
Mandruss
☎ 17:37, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Removed eye distractiong [section linking] symbols from the opening of this BLP. Eye of the beholder — I find the blue links more distracting
{{
section link}}
without expending the meager mental resources required to see that it couldn't possibly work for our purposes. Did he even really understand our purposes? Did his understanding begin and end at the heading of this thread? Then he moved on, but his opposition will presumably count in a consensus assessment. That's what kills bold but complicated proposals, and it's discouraging. Experience tells me we'll see a lot more of that before this is done. ―
Mandruss
☎ 07:01, 29 December 2023 (UTC)@ Space4Time3Continuum2x: is correct. We decided months ago, to not have in-article links. PS - Why do we seem to have two separate (but related) discussions going on? GoodDay ( talk) 22:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't mean for this to be a loaded question—what are the odds this will go through now when it didn't one year ago? TheCelebrinator ( talk) 19:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
You're making a habit of needing to be corrected, unfortunately, things will inevitably start going south.
So what's the latest? Am I understanding it correctly, that a 'new/never before seen' kinda of linkage is being proposed? GoodDay ( talk) 16:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
'new/never before seen', like iPhone in 2007. ― Mandruss ☎ 16:30, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
I just changed the template from this to this. Cessaune [talk] 17:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
{{lead to body link|Link China trade war in the lead|foobar}}
spits out
foobar. You can also use {{l2b}}
or {{lblink}}
.
Cessaune
[talk] 23:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)For proof-of-concept, see User:Mandruss/sandbox. Exact appearance of the lead-to-body links remains to be worked out.
I would much rather read the lead of a subarticleWith ten years and 43 Kedits, would you say you're a typical reader in that respect? If not, with due respect, what works for you isn't really relevant. ― Mandruss ☎ 20:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
what works for you isn't really relevant, sure but my viewpoint as a reader is the best I have. I'm not going to presumptuously assume what the "typical reader" would prefer without any evidence. Galobtter ( talk) 20:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
This proposal would go against that, requiring two clicks to get to a subarticle with the full information.In an online world built around clicks and scrolls, one additional click is hardly significant, even if the reader wants "the full information". One click for each successive level of detail; makes sense to me. This is a good example of the "amazingly lame reasons" I referred to earlier. ― Mandruss ☎ 21:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I plan on reinstating archives to the references in the article since they do not do any harm and protect against future linkrot. Customary note to the talk page per the editnotice. Cheers.-- N Ø 16:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
By legal definition Trump is considered a rapist due to the ruling of the first Carroll trial, yet it's nowhere to be found within the article. A former U.S president legally defined as a rapist seems noteworthy. Chavando ( talk) 01:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
This wiki page states that the president was found in collusion with the Russians but this has be debunked and found false. 72.28.207.138 ( talk) 02:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
"numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign"– Muboshgu ( talk) 17:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Hillary Clinton had fabricated out of desperation when she couldn't find any real dirt on Trump to smear him with.This is a violation of WP:BLP, and also utter nonsense. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 17:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under Trump’s Post Presidency->Civil Lawsuits->E. Jean Carroll section, at the end add that Trump lost the defamation case and was ordered to pay Carroll 83.3 million. 108.65.196.114 ( talk) 05:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In May 2023, a New York jury in a federal lawsuit brought by journalist E. Jean Carroll found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation and ordered him to pay her $5 million.[723] Trump asked the district court for a new trial or a reduction of the damage award, arguing that the jury had not found him liable for rape, and also, in a separate lawsuit, countersued Carroll for defamation. The judge for the two lawsuits ruled against Trump in July and August.[724][725] Trump appealed both decisions to an appeals court.[724][726] The trial in the defamation case began on January 15, 2024.[705] Jan 27th Trump was found guilty of raping E. Jean Carroll who was awarded $83.3 million in rebuke to ex-President Trump for social media attacks amid her sexual assault claims.
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi, I noticed a few grammatical errors in the article. Can I change them please? SilkDirksoak2ek3 03:14, 27 January 2024 (UTC)